What evidence do you have for this assertion?
There is a huge amount of research on this.
There is several hundred research reports available, more or less all of them comes to the same conclusions. The very few ones that differ in conclusion actually shows the same thing as the others do. The researchers just f****d up the set up or the conclusion.
So, research/science agree.
There are several tests that include actual Tesla batteries taken from cars. They age just as the others do.
For example, a test might show this:
Calendar aging, the degradation from time.
Calendar aging reduces the rate with the square root of time so any calendar aging needs four times the time to double if SOC and temperature is kept the same.
Note that 100% is not much worse than 80%. In dome cases 80% is eorse than 100%. But as a general advice, do not have the car always at 100%.
For cycles, smaller cycles wear less and in general cycles at lower SOC wear less.
Hete we can se that using 50% to 0% (ie 3.7V to 0%) cycles causes a wear of 10% for 1000 FCE ( thats actually 2000 50-0% cycles )
1000 FCE equals the range of ~ 1000 times driving 100% to 0%, so around 400K km or 250K mi.
A normal owner might do ~ 20K / year so cyclic aging will be ~ 0.5% per year with that setup.
So, cyclic aging will be around 0.5% per year for the average driver.
Calendar aging, charging to 80% will see around 5% calendar aging the first year (in a average climate)
As calendar aging reduces the rate, calendar aging will be ~ 10% after 4 years.
After eight years, the calendar aging is down to ~ 1% per year or so, but the cyclic aging still is around 0.5% per year.
After these eight years, calendar aging ate 14% of the battery but cyclic aging only ate 4%.